In 1870, the South Asian Muslim scholar Sir Syed Ahmad Khan wrote the book A Series of Essays on the Life of Muhammad [PBUH]. The book was written in response to British author William Muir’s Life of Mahomet (1861). Muir’s book had drawn varied reactions from his peers in Britain. 

Some praised it for the manner in which Muir had used ancient sources to construct a biography of Islam’s Prophet. But there were also those who believed that Muir (an evangelical Christian) was influenced by an understanding of Islam built on perceptions developed by the polemical writings of mediaeval Christians. 

According to the historian Manan Ahmad Asif in The Loss of Hindustan, the British wanted to portray Muslim rule in India as being barbaric, so that, in contrast, British colonial rule may be presented as a civilising force. It seems Muir’s book was aiming to do exactly that. 

The Muslim community in India was greatly offended by Muir’s book. Many ulema [religious scholars] accused him of insulting Islam. Sir Syed too was offended. But he wrote in an editorial that Muir’s book required a studied, scholarly rebuttal instead of rowdy protests. He warned that the protests would further weaken the Muslim community in India. 

Although the act of burning holy scriptures is not a new phenomenon, it is increasingly being used as a tool to incite social and political disruption

He advised that those protesting must let the government handle the issue. As outrage against Muir’s book continued, Sir Syed quietly retreated to formulate a rebuttal. He spent the next eight years closely examining the sources that Muir had used in his book. In 1870, Syed published his response, in which he tried to demonstrate that Muir had indeed largely used sources that only suited his ‘distorted’ views on Islam. 

But despite his rebuttal, Sir Syed pleaded for complete freedom in discussing theological matters. He lamented that “closed minds” were against doing this because it was not in their interest. To him, lack of open debate in this context was why Muslims had become dogmatic and prone to emotional responses. Sir Syed was confident that criticism of Islam can be effectively addressed if one were willing to do so through reason (instead of emotion). 

According to Sir Syed, the Quran did not contradict the natural laws that govern the universe and, therefore, it encourages the use of reason [aql]. To him, Islam’s Holy Book was an allegorical and metaphorical manifestation of these laws, which can only be fully understood through a rational reading of the book. Thus, to Sir Syed, one can only truly appreciate God’s creations if one were fluent in the modern sciences, or had a scientific mindset. 

Sir Syed’s book is still hailed as an imposing but dispassionate response to the critics of Islam. Yet, the 19th century ‘orientalist’ and colonial caricature of a Muslim being an easily triggered blob of emotions has, ironically, continued to be strengthened by many Muslims themselves. This has often played into the hands of anti-Muslim racists. They desecrate Islam’s iconic scriptures, knowing well that their actions will bring them instant media attention. 

For example, the burning of the Quran in public has become a frequent spectacle in certain European countries. Those who do this are largely individuals bred on literature that is a mixture of racist ideas, anti-immigration sentiments and conspiracy theories. They know that the best way to get attention for themselves and their ‘cause’ is to offend Muslims, because the reactions of the Muslims are always the most emotional. 

The act of burning holy scriptures is often referred to as ‘Biblioclasm’. The term is now used to describe the act of burning any book, but its meaning is still rooted in the act of desecrating sacred texts. It initially appeared in the mid-19th century in England. It was first used to denounce the Catholic priests who had burned Maya and Aztec manuscripts during the 16th century Spanish conquest of South America. 

In 325 CE the first Christian emperor of Rome, Constantine, decreed that any text composed by Priest Arius (who had disagreed with the emperor’s interpretation of Christianity) should be burned. In 1244, French Catholics set on fire sacred Jewish manuscripts, after claiming they were blasphemous. 

Between the 15th and 18th centuries, fanatical Protestants in Britain often set fire to Catholic religious texts. In the 1930s, the Nazis burned copies of the Hebrew Bible (along with hundreds of other books that contradicted Nazi philosophy and morals).

Biblioclasm in the context of burning any book continued across the 20th century. But it largely receded as an act of burning religious tomes. However, Buddhist scriptures were burned in Cambodia during communist rule there between 1975 and 1979. In 1980, a Jewish missionary incinerated dozens of copies of the Bible in Jerusalem. 

Biblioclasm as an act of burning iconic religious texts increased in the 21st century. It has mostly involved the burning of the Quran. Since 2005, there have been at least six incidents of Quran burning, mostly in European countries and once in the US. But there have also been cases of non-Christians burning the Bible. 

In March 2011, the US magazine National Review reported that the Iranian theocracy had seized hundreds of copies of the Bible and burned them. In 2014, a Muslim cleric in Egypt set fire to a Bible. In February 2018, Hindu nationalists set fire to dozens of Bibles in the Indian state of Telangana. In June 2022, Hindu nationalists burned a Bible in Karnataka. In January 2023, an Indian Muslim burned a copy of the Bible in Kerala. 

In Burning Books and Libraries, the American academic and author Rebecca Knuth explains Biblioclasm as a form of vandalism. It can express feelings of fear, hate and frustration. Some perpetrators find satisfaction in the physical act of destruction. Knuth wrote that books can be perceived by a social group or individual as undermining their ideological goals, or representing what they despise. So they burn them. 

In Europe, those who burn the Quran often state that it is expressing their freedom of speech. In 1919, the US Supreme Court declared that speech or actions whose principal purpose is to create panic or violence is outside the scope of free speech. 

This gave birth to the popular analogy “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre”. This is not free speech. It can cause panic and a fatal stampede. So, if the burning of a book that is a sacred icon to a community can (and does) cause serious social and political disruption, then the act is quite like the act of shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.

Published in Dawn, EOS, July 16th, 2023